I'm not sure what people are griping about. I guess they think they could do a better film. (Bloody doubtful)
There's nothing all that wrong with this movie. Some good performances, decent soundtrack, effective atmosphere. I think audiences just look for something to complain about.
It's not gonna win any awards but it's an entertaining watch.
Perlman is solid. Larter is strong. And the "bad guys" seem legitimately and worryingly nefarious.
Admittedly, there' a bit of an interesting interpretive scene the puts a speed bump on the road through the action, but it's short and somewhat logical.
The narrative may raise a few questions of continuity, and I can see a lot of grumbling about the writing. But when people site examples like The Mentalist as counter examples of good writing, you have to question the validity of the criticism. And I actually liked the Mentalist.
Again, this ain't palm d'or quality, but it's more interesting than a CBS formula crime drama.
It's not gonna win any awards but it's an entertaining watch.
Perlman is solid. Larter is strong. And the "bad guys" seem legitimately and worryingly nefarious.
Admittedly, there' a bit of an interesting interpretive scene the puts a speed bump on the road through the action, but it's short and somewhat logical.
The narrative may raise a few questions of continuity, and I can see a lot of grumbling about the writing. But when people site examples like The Mentalist as counter examples of good writing, you have to question the validity of the criticism. And I actually liked the Mentalist.
Again, this ain't palm d'or quality, but it's more interesting than a CBS formula crime drama.